For decades, Los Angeles has been a national example of coalition politics, where candidates build governing majorities by stitching together groups with different interests and histories. The model has shifted repeatedly as the city has changed.

Former Mayor Tom Bradley, Los Angeles’ first Black mayor and its longest-serving chief executive, built one of the city’s most durable coalitions. Elected in 1973, Bradley joined Black voters with liberal voters then concentrated on the Westside, a base strong enough to carry him through four additional mayoral victories.

Richard Riordan, a moderate Republican and Catholic who succeeded Bradley, reworked the city’s political map in 1993 by winning support from the San Fernando Valley, moderate voters in central Los Angeles and Latino voters. That coalition helped him win reelection easily, but it has proved impossible for later Republicans to duplicate as GOP registration in the city has fallen to less than 15% of voters.

Other mayors have risen or fallen depending on how well they held together key voting groups. James Hahn won with backing from the Valley and Black voters, but lost support after opposing San Fernando Valley secession and declining to reappoint Police Chief Bernard C. Parks. He was defeated when he sought a second term. Antonio Villaraigosa later drew strong support from Latinos and liberals and served two terms. Eric Garcetti carried that coalition through the COVID-19 era.

Bass’ 2022 victory reflected, in part, a return to the Bradley-style formula. She began with strong backing from Black voters and expanded her support among progressives with help from organized labor. That coalition was enough to defeat Rick Caruso, a former Republican running as a Democrat who spent more than $100 million of his own money on the campaign.

This year, however, Bass faces a different kind of challenge. Raman is also a woman of color, but she is younger and positioned further to the left politically. That creates an unusual test for Bass: a coalition built to defeat a well-funded, more conservative opponent now must be reoriented against a progressive challenger.

Early results from the election earlier this month showed Bass performing well in central Los Angeles, where many Black and Latino voters live. Raman led in younger, more progressive neighborhoods such as Silver Lake, Echo Park and parts of the southeast San Fernando Valley.

The returns also revealed possible openings and limitations for both candidates. Spencer Pratt, despite running without traditional qualifications or a detailed policy platform, won precincts on the Westside and in the western San Fernando Valley. Even so, Bass often finished second in those areas, a notable result given that Pratt’s campaign capitalized on frustration with City Hall and with Bass in particular.

If Bass becomes the more moderate or conservative option in a runoff, that could make it harder for Raman to pick up votes in those precincts. Raman, who received 28.5% of the vote, would need to expand well beyond her existing base to cross the 50% threshold.

One group that may matter more than in past Los Angeles elections is newer residents. At a recent event hosted by UCLA’s Blueprint magazine and co-sponsored by CalMatters, City Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson said people who have arrived in Los Angeles more recently often bring different political priorities than longtime residents.

Housing is one major example. Many newer Angelenos strongly support building more housing density, arguing that it could help address high rents and homelessness. But Harris-Dawson noted that for many longtime residents, particularly Black families who migrated from the South, Los Angeles represented something different: a place where they could buy a home, have a yard and enjoy space that had been denied to them elsewhere.

For those residents, single-family neighborhoods are not simply inefficient land use. They are tied to opportunity, stability and freedom.

Public safety may also be viewed differently depending on a voter’s history with the city. Some of Pratt’s supporters, including people commenting on social media who have not lived or worked in Los Angeles, portrayed the city as being in severe decline. Newer residents or those from more insulated neighborhoods may share that view, especially in a city that still struggles with serious violence. Last year, Los Angeles recorded 230 homicides.

But longtime Angelenos may see the same number through a different lens. The city once recorded more than 1,000 killings in a year. Many residents also remember the 1992 unrest following the acquittal of Los Angeles police officers in the beating of a Black motorist, part of a broader history of police abuse and racial tension.

In that context, current crime levels can be seen as both deeply troubling and significantly improved from earlier decades. Whether voters focus on the danger that remains or the progress made may shape how they respond to candidates’ messages.

New residents can bring urgency, energy and expectations for change. They may be less attached to older political habits and less willing to accept longstanding conditions. At the same time, longtime residents can view some of those criticisms as lacking historical understanding.

That divide could become one of the defining features of the mayoral race. Bass is expected to draw her strongest support from voters with deeper roots in the city, while Raman appears positioned to appeal to newer arrivals and younger progressive voters.

Los Angeles politics has long been shaped by coalitions of race, class, ideology and neighborhood. This election may add another major bloc to the calculation: voters divided by their relationship to the city’s past.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Nithya Raman Could Further Reshape L.A.’s Shifting Political Alliances appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The analysis comes as Los Angeles officials debate how to respond to Senate Bill 79, a state law intended to allow taller apartment buildings near transit hubs. Last month, the Los Angeles City Planning Commission considered a proposal that would delay implementation of SB 79 until 2030 and instead advance a local “Low-Rise Ordinance.”

Supporters of more aggressive housing reforms say that approach misses a larger opportunity: allowing so-called starter homes in single-family neighborhoods. Under the AEI proposal, aging single-family houses could be replaced with townhomes, fourplexes or projects with as many as eight homes on one lot.

The institute estimates that such a policy could add about 13,600 homes per year in Los Angeles, nearly doubling the city’s current pace of new housing construction. Over a decade, that would amount to roughly 136,000 additional homes, while generating an estimated $9 billion in property tax revenue.

The research argues that Los Angeles already sees older single-family homes replaced in many neighborhoods, but often with large luxury houses that do not increase the number of units. A typical example cited by AEI involves a $1.1 million single-family home being demolished and replaced by a $3.1 million mansion.

By contrast, the institute says, replacing that same property with four smaller homes could produce units valued at about $1.2 million each. While the individual homes would cost less than a new mansion, the total property value would rise, increasing tax revenue for the city and other public services.

AEI estimates the revenue from such conversions could reach $182 million in the first year, $9 billion over 10 years and $36 billion over 20 years as more lots are redeveloped. Those funds would support the city’s general fund, schools and essential services.

The report points to several reasons Los Angeles is especially well suited for this type of housing reform. Much of the city’s single-family housing stock is old, with the typical home built before 1960. Land values are also high, with the median home valued at roughly $1.1 million, much of that tied to the land rather than the structure itself.

In all, nearly 400,000 single-family homes sit on valuable land across Los Angeles, according to the analysis.

The debate over SB 79 has focused largely on housing near rail stations and major transit corridors. The state law is designed to make it easier to build mid-rise and high-rise housing in those areas. One estimate cited by AEI suggests a streamlined version of transit-oriented development could produce about 4,200 homes per year.

But the institute argues that starter homes represent a broader opportunity because they could be built throughout existing single-family neighborhoods, not only near transit. It also says Los Angeles’ local low-rise proposal could fall short in both directions: allowing more density than needed in some areas while not permitting enough housing near transit to make a significant difference.

Los Angeles has a long history with this type of housing. Between 1921 and 1930, the city permitted about 220,000 homes, roughly half of them duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes or bungalow courts. About two-thirds of those structures still stand today. The report says those housing types became far less common after federal policy, state law and local zoning changes beginning in the 1930s restricted or prohibited them.

Housing advocates have pointed to California’s accessory dwelling unit reforms as a possible model. Since the state streamlined approvals, reduced fees and required cities to allow many ADUs by right, backyard cottages and garage conversions have become a significant source of new housing in Los Angeles. Nearly one-quarter of new homes built in the city in recent years have been ADUs, according to the article.

Los Angeles faces an estimated shortage of nearly 500,000 homes. While city officials continue to push back against state mandates for more housing near transit, the AEI analysis argues that legalizing small multi-unit projects on single-family lots could provide one of the largest housing opportunities available to the city.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Starter Home Conversions Could Unlock New Housing Supply Across Los Angeles appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development notified the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority on Thursday that the agency is barred from participating in federal funding competitions until HUD’s Office of Inspector General completes its investigation.

In its letter, HUD accused the agency, known as LAHSA, of mishandling public money and failing to make progress in reducing homelessness. Federal officials alleged the agency did not properly document when people left motel housing, used government funds to pay for services covered by a separate contract, and could not provide records verifying the existence of housing units it was responsible for.

“Taxpayers will no longer bankroll an organization that puts its own self-interests ahead of the Americans it was created to serve,” HUD Secretary Scott Turner said in a statement announcing the action.

LAHSA, a joint city-county agency created in the 1990s, has long served as the central coordinator for homelessness services across the Los Angeles region, which has the largest unhoused population in California. The agency receives federal homelessness funds on behalf of the city, county and nonprofit providers.

Last year, LAHSA received nearly $200 million through HUD’s Continuum of Care program, the largest federal funding stream for homelessness services.

The suspension comes after months of scrutiny and upheaval at the agency. Two critical audits found LAHSA had not adequately tracked spending or program outcomes. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors later pulled county funding from LAHSA and shifted it to a newly created county agency. LAHSA’s former chief executive resigned after criticism over contracts signed with a nonprofit connected to her husband. In April, the agency laid off 284 employees.

Despite those problems, LAHSA remains the designated lead homelessness agency for the region, making the federal suspension potentially far-reaching for programs that serve people living on the streets, in shelters and in supportive housing.

In a statement, LAHSA warned that blocking the funding could undermine existing efforts and put thousands of formerly homeless residents at risk of returning to homelessness.

“This appears to be a blatant attempt to pull yet more resources from Los Angeles, a city they have targeted time and again, when it is clear that LAHSA has either corrected or is in the process of correcting nearly all of the issues raised,” spokesperson Ahmad Chapman said.

Chapman said the agency is strengthening internal controls, updating its financial systems and improving how it tracks its programs. He said LAHSA’s immediate focus is to “explore all available options” to keep federal homelessness dollars flowing to the region.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said she shares concerns about LAHSA’s performance but argued that cutting off funding would worsen the crisis rather than solve it.

“Ultimately people will lose their lives,” Bass said in a statement. “We urge HUD to work with the City of Los Angeles to provide the necessary funding to reduce homelessness.”

The action comes as homelessness in Los Angeles County has shown signs of decline. According to the point-in-time count, the number of unhoused people dropped in both 2024 and 2025. Last year, the county had an estimated 72,000 unhoused residents.

The Trump administration has also been pushing broader changes to how Los Angeles and other California communities address homelessness. Federal officials are seeking to shift money away from permanent housing programs and toward temporary shelters, while giving preference to housing programs that require sobriety.

Earlier this month, HUD opened the latest application period for Continuum of Care funding and included those policy changes. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has estimated the changes could cost California nearly $238 million in funding for permanent housing and could put close to 15,000 people at risk of losing their homes.

California has sued over an earlier Trump administration attempt to impose similar changes. That case remains pending.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Trump Administration Blocks Federal Homelessness Funding for Los Angeles appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In Los Angeles County, Measure ER, a proposed half-cent sales tax for five years, was ahead with 50.59% of the vote as of Tuesday evening. The measure needs a simple majority to pass. Supporters have said the tax, which would not apply to groceries or medications, could raise about $1 billion annually.

Los Angeles County voters have often supported taxes for public programs, said Mike Bonin, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at Cal State Los Angeles. But this measure faced a tougher political climate, particularly as residents continue to feel pressure from the cost of living.

Bonin said even some Democrats and progressive voters were uneasy about relying on a sales tax, which is often considered regressive because it takes a larger share of income from lower-income households than from wealthier residents.

“This is tough on people, and so there was some resistance to it,” Bonin said, adding that the measure did not move ahead until late in the count.

In Contra Costa County, Measure B would have imposed a five-eighths-cent sales tax expected to generate roughly $150 million a year. Voters turned it down, with 57% opposed in the latest count.

“We’re in a difficult period for middle-income people,” said Marc Joffe, president of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, which led the opposition campaign. He said rising gas prices during the campaign likely helped opponents make their case.

The outcomes differ from Santa Clara County, where voters last fall approved a similar sales tax with 57% support.

The Los Angeles and Contra Costa measures were prompted by concerns over federal health care funding changes approved last summer by Congress and President Trump. County officials and health care providers say changes to Medicaid, known in California as Medi-Cal, are expected to increase the number of uninsured residents. As more people lose coverage but continue to need medical care, safety-net clinics and hospitals could lose major revenue.

In Los Angeles County, Measure ER revenue also would support public health programs, Planned Parenthood services and emergency preparedness.

Health care providers backed both county measures, warning that without new funding, clinics could be forced to cut hours, reduce staff or close sites.

“There’s no way out of this,” Louise McCarthy, chief executive of the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County, said on election night. “This is a situation that is being forced upon us. No local decisions made this happen, and no local decisions without revenue can solve the problem we’re in now.”

New projections from the UC Berkeley Labor Center estimate that 2.2 million more Californians could be uninsured by 2030 because of Trump’s spending law and recent state policy decisions. That would push California’s uninsured rate to 14.7%, nearly doubling it and undoing much of the state’s progress in expanding coverage over the past decade.

Counties, which operate public hospitals and safety-net clinics, say federal changes and funding reductions are creating large budget gaps. Local officials also say the state has not provided enough support to offset the losses.

Los Angeles County Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who introduced Measure ER, described the tax as a last resort. She said the county had already frozen hiring, restricted overtime and used emergency reserves. County officials estimate federal cuts will cost Los Angeles County about $2.5 billion over the next three years.

The measure drew opposition from some cities, anti-tax organizations and Los Angeles County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, whose district includes the county’s northern exurban communities. Sales tax rates are already among the highest in the state in some parts of Los Angeles County, including Lancaster and Palmdale, where rates are 11.25%. In Contra Costa County, Pinole and El Cerrito have sales tax rates of 10.25%.

Both counties needed approval from the state Legislature to place the proposed taxes before voters because the increases would exceed state sales tax limits.

The votes came as Californians continue to identify affordability as a leading concern. A recent Public Policy Institute of California survey found that half of Californians named the cost of living as the state’s top issue.

Susan Shelley of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which opposed both measures, argued the proposals were presented in a misleading way. Because the measures were written as general sales taxes rather than taxes legally reserved for health care, they required only a simple majority to pass instead of the two-thirds threshold required for a special tax.

Shelley said she hopes the results caution other counties against pursuing similar measures.

“I hope it sends the message that people are taxed enough,” she said.

Supporters in Los Angeles County said the money would be used for health care as promised.

“This is a temporary solution, and we will not stop fighting for the long-term federal funding Angelenos deserve,” said Jim Mangia, chief executive of St. John’s Community Health.

Contra Costa County operates one hospital and 11 clinics. Supporters of Measure B estimated the county could face a deficit of at least $1 billion over five years because of funding losses, though opponents disputed that figure.

County Supervisor John Gioia said the tax revenue would have helped preserve core services and keep residents insured. Under Trump’s budget bill, counties will have to verify Medicaid eligibility every six months instead of once a year. Adults without children also will face new work reporting requirements.

Gioia said the measure could have paid for more eligibility workers and strengthened the county program that provides basic health services to residents who have no other insurance options.

Los Angeles and Contra Costa counties looked to Santa Clara County as a model. Voters there approved a similar tax in November, and it took effect in April. County officials expect it to generate about $337 million a year. Santa Clara County is directing the money to emergency services, cardiac care, mental health, maternity care and other programs.

Even so, Santa Clara County Executive James R. Williams said the new tax revenue covers only about one-third of the county’s projected shortfall. The county is still cutting and reorganizing staff and services to balance its budget.

“We were very clear, right from the outset, when we put this emergency measure on the ballot, that we were staring down over a billion dollars a year in revenue losses” because of federal cuts, Williams said. The missing piece, he added, is state support.

The California State Association of Counties estimates federal cuts could cost California’s 58 counties as much as $9.5 billion. County leaders say local governments cannot absorb that level of loss on their own. The association has been asking the state for more funding for months, but Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers face a deadline next week to finalize the 2026-27 state budget.

“For most California counties, raising local taxes to absorb the impacts of federal cuts is not feasible,” said Graham Knaus, the association’s chief executive. “And the fact that counties are even being forced to contemplate it is unacceptable.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Health Tax Measures Split Voters as Cost-of-Living Worries Mount appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The Associated Press called the race Monday, confirming that Raman, 44, a progressive council member, had secured the No. 2 spot behind Bass. Pratt, a Republican supported by President Donald Trump, had initially appeared to be in stronger position, but his standing slipped as more ballots were tallied.

The shift angered some Pratt supporters, with some making unsupported claims about the counting process. But California’s election rules often produce extended vote counts because ballots postmarked by Election Day are valid even if they arrive afterward. In this race, later-arriving ballots appeared to favor younger and more liberal voters, benefiting Raman more than Pratt.

Los Angeles remains difficult terrain for a Republican candidate. The city’s electorate is roughly 15% Republican, and Pratt’s support closely tracked Trump’s 2024 performance in a city where the president remains deeply unpopular. Pratt campaigned as an anti-City Hall candidate, seeking to unite voters frustrated with local government, but he finished with about a quarter of the vote.

The result sets up the contest Bass had hoped to avoid: a challenge from her left by a sitting council member with an established progressive base. Raman’s strongest showing came in neighborhoods such as Silver Lake, Hollywood, Echo Park and Glassell Park, areas with large numbers of renters, younger residents and left-leaning voters.

Bass, meanwhile, showed strength across broad portions of South and Central Los Angeles, where Black and Latino voters helped power her first mayoral victory. Those neighborhoods have long been central to Bass’ coalition and remain proud of her role as the first Black woman elected mayor of Los Angeles. They also include communities that have seen significant improvements in safety over recent decades, even as concerns about homelessness, affordability and public services persist.

Still, the runoff presents a serious test for Bass. Nearly two-thirds of voters in the first round cast ballots for someone other than the incumbent, signaling frustration with the direction of City Hall. Raman is expected to press Bass on housing costs, homelessness policy, public safety spending and whether Los Angeles has moved quickly enough to address daily struggles faced by renters and working families.

Raman’s campaign is likely to focus heavily on the city’s affordability crisis, including the high cost of housing and the pace of development. She also has positioned herself as a candidate seeking new approaches to policing and public safety, an issue that could draw sharp contrasts with Bass.

Those questions now move to the center of the mayoral race: whether Los Angeles spends too much of its budget on the Police Department, whether the city’s neighborhood protections slow housing construction, and how officials should handle homeless encampments when shelter and housing options remain limited.

Bass will run on a record that includes declines in crime and street homelessness, though many Angelenos remain impatient with the pace of change. Raman, for her part, will have to convince voters that she can offer a fresh direction while also accounting for her own record on the City Council, where she has served since 2020.

The runoff also leaves a major political question: what happens to the roughly 25% of voters who supported Pratt?

Many of those voters were motivated by opposition to Bass and anger at City Hall. They now face a choice between the incumbent mayor, whom some blame for city failures including the response to the Palisades fire, and Raman, a democratic socialist whom Pratt repeatedly criticized during the campaign. Some may sit out the runoff altogether. Others may find Bass closer to their views, particularly on policing and encampments.

Bass’ first response after Raman advanced suggested how she intends to frame the race. She described Raman as a council member who “allows encampments near schools and cuts the police force,” signaling that the mayor will try to position herself as the more moderate or conservative option in the runoff.

With Pratt out, the race is expected to become a more direct debate over Los Angeles’ future: whether voters want Bass to continue her approach to homelessness, policing and city services, or whether Raman can turn frustration over affordability and slow-moving change into a winning campaign.

Original source: CalMatters

The post With Pratt Out and Raman In, Los Angeles Mayoral Race Takes New Shape appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The California Department of Aging is revising its intrastate funding formula, the method used to divide state and federal aging dollars among local agencies. The state’s goal is to better align funding with need and improve equity across regions.

But Los Angeles County aging officials warn that the proposed formula could have serious consequences in large, high-demand communities. Maral Karaccusian, director of the Los Angeles County Aging and Disabilities Department, said the plan does not fully account for the scale and complexity of serving older adults in the state’s most populous county.

Across Los Angeles County, thousands of seniors rely on publicly funded meals each day. Some receive food delivered to their homes, while others gather for meals at senior centers and community sites. For many older adults, those programs provide more than nutrition; they also offer regular contact with others and a way to remain safely at home.

According to projections cited by county officials, Los Angeles County could see a 17% reduction under the proposed funding approach. That could translate into nearly 186,000 fewer meals served annually at community locations and more than 157,000 fewer home-delivered meals each year.

Combined, the reductions would amount to roughly 1,300 fewer meals per day.

County officials say the concern is not with the state’s effort to modernize the formula, but with how the proposed model weighs different factors. The formula considers age, income, disability and geography, giving them roughly equal weight. Critics argue those factors do not drive demand for services in the same way.

Low-income older adults, for example, are more likely to rely on publicly funded meal programs and supportive services. Dense urban counties also operate at a different scale than smaller regions, serving larger numbers of seniors with complex needs.

Los Angeles County serves about one-quarter of California’s older adults, including large numbers of low-income seniors and those requiring more intensive support. Officials also point to growth in the county’s aging population, noting that Los Angeles County added more than 92,000 older adults in a single year.

If the formula does not adequately reflect those realities, they argue, money could shift away from areas with the greatest demand. Other large regions with significant senior populations could face similar pressure.

Advocates say the state should test alternative versions of the formula before making a final decision, to ensure the system reflects actual service needs and does not unintentionally reduce access to food and care.

California has made aging in place and independent living major policy goals in recent years. Local officials say those commitments depend on funding systems that work not only in statewide calculations, but also in the communities where seniors rely on daily services.

Original source: CalMatters

The post State Plan to Overhaul Senior Services Funding Could Cut Meals for Older Angelenos appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

As of Wednesday afternoon, with about 62% of ballots counted, reality television personality Spencer Pratt was ahead of Councilmember Nithya Raman by roughly 7 percentage points for the second runoff spot, according to election results reported by The Associated Press. Pratt had about 30% of the vote, while Raman stood at about 23%.

For Bass, that matchup would be politically advantageous. Raman, a progressive councilmember, could have forced a deeper debate over housing, homelessness, public safety and the mayor’s record after four years in office. Pratt, by contrast, has drawn attention through celebrity and social media, but has not demonstrated the same command of city policy or the same ability to expand his coalition beyond voters already frustrated with City Hall.

The returns nonetheless carry a warning for Los Angeles leaders. Pratt, who lost his Pacific Palisades home in last year’s fires, appears to have attracted a sizable bloc of voters unhappy with the direction of the city. Their concerns vary — homelessness, affordability, public safety, rebuilding after the fires and dissatisfaction with Bass’ leadership — but the scale of his support suggests many residents are willing to cast a protest vote even for an unconventional candidate with little government experience.

That discontent should not be dismissed simply because Pratt is unlikely to pose a serious threat to Bass in November.

Raman’s voters, by contrast, are generally on Bass’ political left. Many may believe the mayor has not moved aggressively enough on housing affordability or homelessness, or may disagree with her support for increased police spending. But they are unlikely to migrate in large numbers to Pratt, whose views on homelessness and public safety are far more conservative than Raman’s. Polling circulated by the Bass campaign indicated that more than 90% of Raman supporters viewed Bass as their second choice.

That dynamic gives Bass a clearer path than she had four years ago, when she defeated businessman Rick Caruso after a hard-fought contest. Pratt may have a committed base, but his room to grow appears limited. Some backers of other candidates may consider supporting him, especially those aligned with former President Donald Trump, who has endorsed Pratt. But many Los Angeles voters are likely to be wary of a candidate whose public résumé centers on reality television, social media and business ventures such as crystal sales rather than experience managing a large public agency.

Election night underscored the contrast between the two campaigns.

Pratt’s campaign event drew media attention, but reporters were kept outside until he briefly appeared with his wife, Heidi Montag, at Don Antonio’s Mexican restaurant in Los Angeles. In remarks to reporters, Pratt suggested his candidacy was part of “God’s plan,” while continuing the social media-driven style that helped fuel his campaign.

Bass, meanwhile, surrounded herself with labor and business leaders and emphasized the breadth of her institutional support. She highlighted her opposition to Trump, whose backing of Pratt may be more liability than asset in heavily Democratic Los Angeles.

“We are a union town,” Bass told supporters, drawing loud applause.

The line reflected one of Bass’ central advantages: a long-standing understanding of Los Angeles political coalitions. She has represented the region in Sacramento, in Congress and now at City Hall, and her campaign event was designed to show that organized labor, civic leaders and key business voices remain largely behind her.

Still, Bass faces a complicated reelection message. She has often been most effective politically when presenting herself as an agent of change. Now, as the incumbent, she must argue for continued change after already having had four years to deliver on some of the city’s most urgent problems.

Those problems remain substantial. Los Angeles is still grappling with severe homelessness, a shortage of affordable housing, rising living costs and sharp disagreement over the future of public safety. Housing policy continues to divide residents who want to protect existing neighborhoods from those who argue the city must build more quickly and at greater density. On policing, Bass has pursued a more traditional approach that includes increased LAPD funding, while progressives such as Raman have argued for shifting more money toward mental health response and alternatives to incarceration.

A Bass-Raman runoff likely would have put those differences at the center of the campaign. A Bass-Pratt runoff may not.

Pratt’s positions are generally to the right of the city’s electorate, while many voters who are skeptical of Bass are more progressive than she is. That leaves Bass with less incentive to engage in a detailed policy debate. If Pratt remains a weak opponent, the mayor may be able to run a cautious campaign focused on competence, stability and opposition to Trump rather than a full defense of her record.

That would benefit Bass politically, but it could leave voters without the kind of serious discussion the city needs.

Critics of the mayor argue that housing production remains too slow, homelessness is not improving quickly enough and City Hall lacks urgency in managing basic services and major departments. Some say Bass is more comfortable as a legislative negotiator than as an executive driving a large city bureaucracy.

A stronger challenger could force Bass to answer those criticisms directly and explain what she would do differently in a second term. Pratt’s candidacy, despite its visibility, may not force that reckoning.

For now, the mayor has reason to be pleased with the shape of the race. But the vote also makes clear that a significant share of Los Angeles residents remain frustrated, angry or unconvinced that city government is meeting the moment. Whether that frustration leads to a serious civic debate before November is far less certain.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Mayoral Clash May Boost Karen Bass, but Leaves Los Angeles Voters Shortchanged appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

They call themselves the Godmothers of the Disappeared.

The interfaith group has continued meeting long after the large demonstrations around downtown Los Angeles faded from daily view. Its members say their weekly vigil is meant to honor those taken into immigration custody, support their families and offer a quieter form of public witness amid the continuing fallout from federal immigration enforcement across Southern California.

Katharine Guerrero, one of the participants, told the group that Tongva Chicana activist Gloria Arellanes had taught her the meaning of standing in a circle — a symbol, she said, of unity rather than division. She also noted the layered history surrounding the civic center area, including its significance to the Tongva people, unmarked Indigenous graves near a nearby church, the former site of a slavery auction and the location across the freeway where 18 Chinese men and boys were lynched in 1871.

For the Godmothers, the federal building has become another site tied to state power and racial injustice, this time through the detention and deportation of immigrants.

The group describes its work as a companion to rapid-response networks, legal aid efforts and street protests organized in immigrant communities. Its members advocate for detainees to be released or returned, oppose federal tactics they say divide communities and call on immigration officers, law enforcement and military personnel to reconsider their roles.

When large protests erupted around the federal building last June, demonstrators filled nearby streets to oppose immigration arrests, raids and the deployment of military forces. Guerrero was there as a volunteer medical aide, assisting people injured by rubber bullets.

As confrontations escalated among sheriff’s deputies, police, federal agents and protesters, Guerrero said the Godmothers sought to create a different kind of space — one centered on prayer, conversation and presence.

“With godmothers, there’s a disarmament that allows for conversation,” Guerrero said. “We forget we belong to one another and in those moments, you get the opportunity to remember.”

Guerrero said she saw the vigil affect some National Guard members and military personnel stationed near federal property last summer, describing small moments of visible attention during public prayers.

“We are called to be in solidarity, even if that means the person suited up,” she said. “That’s the hard work.”

The group’s name is inspired by Argentina’s Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, the women who gathered in Buenos Aires during the country’s military dictatorship in the late 1970s to demand answers about children and relatives who had been disappeared by security forces.

The Rev. Alexia Salvatierra said the Argentine mothers not only prayed for their missing children, but also for the soldiers serving the regime.

“They also gave flowers to the soldiers and they won,” Salvatierra said. “They changed the regime and were able to liberate their sons and daughters from prison.”

In Los Angeles, the Godmothers have paired their vigils with direct assistance. Members say they have raised about $22,000 to help more than 100 families affected by immigration detention, including families who lost primary wage earners. Some of the money has gone toward bail. Members said they have encountered mothers with children outside detention facilities, crying and unsure how they could afford legal help.

During the weekly vigil, participants walk together in song to two entrances of the federal complex where detainees are held. At one stop, near a driveway leading to an underground loading dock, Rosa Manriquez read a short biography of Rutilio Grande, the Salvadoran priest whose killing helped move Archbishop Oscar Romero to speak out against state repression. Both men were later killed by a death squad.

Manriquez then led a call-and-response prayer and a litany naming figures such as Emma Goldman, James Baldwin and Octavia Butler — people the group holds up as advocates, writers and organizers who pushed for a more just society.

Susan Garcia also spoke about a recent visit to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, the private detention facility in the Mojave Desert where many immigrants detained in Southern California are sent.

The group then continued toward a rear loading dock near the Metropolitan Detention Center, singing the Black spiritual “Down by the Riverside.” Richard Barragan offered a prayer through a microphone connected to a small rolling speaker, intended to be heard by detainees and federal personnel alike.

The Rev. Heidi Worthen Gamble led the final song, “Woke Up This Morning (With My Mind Stayed on Freedom).” Afterward, participants approached the black chain-link fence installed last summer and placed white daisies near the entrance.

Manriquez said the flowers are meant for detainees to see, but also as an offering to the federal agents and military members working there.

“They don’t have to do this,” she said.

For the Godmothers of the Disappeared, the ritual is both remembrance and a call to action. While the urgent work of protecting immigrant communities continues, members say the vigils are also meant to help Southern Californians imagine what comes after the raids, detentions and separations — and to begin the difficult work of building something more just.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Interfaith Group Keeps Vigil for L.A. Immigrants Detained by ICE After Protests Fade appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Deputy Public Defender Derek Dillman “expressed a doubt” that his client, 35-year-old speech pathologist Ivanna Ortiz, was competent to stand trial on charges of attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon after she allegedly opened fire on the singer’s Bevelry Crest property on March 8.

But after a brief closed-door hearing, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Shannon Cooley did not find there was substantial evidence of Ortiz’s mental “incompetence” and ordered criminal proceedings to continue.

A spokeswoman for the public defender’s office declined to comment outside the courtroom, noting Cooley had sealed any discussion of Ortiz’s mental health. Dillman did not offer specifics about his concerns during the portions of the hearing open to the public.

Prosecutors say the shots fired by Ortiz struck Rihanna’s home, a neighbor’s residence and an Airstream parked on the grounds. No one was hit, but Rihanna and her husband — hip-hop and actor ASAP Rocky — were inside the Airstream at the time it was shot.

Ortiz has pleaded not guilty.

Earlier on Wednesday, Ortiz sought to have Dillman fired as her attorney during a closed-door hearing before Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Shannon Cooley, who presumably blocked that attempt as Dillman was still representing Ortiz late Wednesday morning.

Ortiz continued to bicker with Dillman later in the day when he tried to schedule a future hearing in the case for July, demanding he “do it sooner.”

After Dillman expressed concern about his client’s mental health, Cooley cleared the courtroom so she could question the attorney for evidence of Ortiz’s purported mental illness. Typically, when a defense attorney raises questions about their client’s mental fitness, judges refer such cases to the mental health court in Hollywood. L.A. County Deputy Dist. Atty. Alexander Bott, who is prosecuting the case, said he had never seen anything like what happened on Wednesday.

On the day of the shooting, Rihanna said Rocky was sleeping when she “suddenly heard approximately ten loud sounds like something banging on metal,” according to a police report made public in a court filing in late March.

When the shooting stopped, she grabbed Rocky “out of bed, told him they were being shot at and pushed both of them to the ground,” according to the police report. The couple then ran to their house to check on their children, the police report said.

Ortiz had made a number of disparaging posts about Rihanna on social media in the weeks leading up to the shooting.

When police arrested her in Sherman Oaks an hour after the shooting, Ortiz was carrying a black Springfield Armory rifle and two 30-round rifle magazines, according to the police report. She legally owned the firearm, according to court records.

While Ortiz declined to answer specific questions from police after her arrest, she did make a brief statement to investigators.

“Can I say one sentence?” she asked, according to the report. “I would like to say that I wasn’t attempting murder. But that’s all I wanted to say.”

The post Case of shooting at Rihanna’s home clouded by concerns over accused woman’s mental health appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Bruce Jin, 61, of Los Angeles, had pleaded guilty in the case in January 2025, admitting that he and other co-conspirators “conspired to obtain state unemployment compensation funds, and other public funds, through fraudulent means,” the DOJ said in a May 1 statement.

Jin and two co-conspirators “entered into a series of agreements to make it appear as if they were operating legitimate businesses selling masks and other COVID19 personal protective equipment,” the DOJ said.

“The funds that the defendants obtained and laundered through their companies were derived from fraudulently obtained state unemployment compensation (‘UC’) benefits. The indictment alleges that Economic Impact Payments, or ‘stimulus payments,’ were also obtained through fraudulent means.”

Economic Impact Payments were offered by the federal government during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide financial relief to Americans.

Some unnamed members of the scheme, including a few believed to be from China, set up thousands of accounts at banks in the United States, using the personal information of identity theft victims. The unemployment compensation funds were then routed to these accounts.

Once the funds were credited, they were transferred to companies controlled by Jin and the co-conspirators.

When Jin received the funds, he made international wire transfers to a bank account linked to a company in China, totaling more than $35 million. An additional $2 million was transferred by Jin directly into the bank account of a Chinese person who controlled the company.

In addition to the 144-month prison term, Jin was ordered to forfeit more than $59 million in U.S. currency and other property. Two co-conspirators in the case, both from Los Angeles, have pleaded guilty and are set to be sentenced this month.

Unemployment compensation is paid by a state to workers who lost their jobs due to layoffs or other circumstances, such as business downsizing. The compensation is intended to provide these workers with a source of income until they can find work.

On April 21, the DOJ announced that, in another case of unemployment compensation fraud, a Pennsylvania resident was indicted by a federal grand jury.

The defendant in the case worked at the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry. While working at the department, the defendant allegedly accepted unauthorized payments from people who filed for unemployment compensation. The payments were made to the defendant to expedite and secure certain benefits for the applicants.

According to the DOJ, the defendant’s actions resulted in $528,449 in unemployment compensation benefits being paid to claimants who were not entitled to them.

“This investigation and the resulting Indictment send a clear message that government employees who steal and misuse public funds will be brought to justice,” U.S. attorney Troy Rivetti said.

“Our office and our law enforcement partners are committed to rooting out fraud and safeguarding the public treasury.”

In an October 2025 update, the IRS warned Americans that some states were experiencing a surge in fraudulent unemployment claims being filed by organized crime groups using stolen identities.

People who receive mail from a government agency about an unemployment claim or payment that they did not file for may be a victim of such an identity theft scam, the IRS said.

The agency warned that fraudsters were creating websites mimicking legitimate unemployment benefit sites, including those of the state workforce agency (SWA), to dupe people and steal their personal information.

“To lure consumers to these fake websites, fraudsters send spam text messages and emails purporting to be from an SWA and containing a link,” the IRS said.

“The fake websites are designed to trick consumers into thinking they are applying for unemployment benefits and disclosing personally identifiable information and other sensitive data. That information can then be used by fraudsters to commit identity theft.”

The post California Man Sentenced for Stealing $59 Million in Public Benefits, Transferring Funds to China appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.